Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2002] FCA 1622

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2002] FCA 1622 COSTS – motion seeking security for costs in respect of appeal to Full Court – whether fact that applicants are extensive litigants is relevant to the question of whether security should be granted – prospects of success of appeal – whether fact that applicants have chosen not to pursue less costly avenue of merits review before Social Security Appeals Tribunal is relevant – ability of applicants to pay respondent's costs of appeal if not successful on appeal Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 56 Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (Cth), s 21 Social Security Act 1991 (Cth), s 7(2) A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth), ss 97, 101 Federal Court Rules, O 28, O 52 r 20 Arnold v Queensland (1987) 73 ALR 607, followed Bates v Omareef Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 536, cited Cowell v Taylor (1885) 31 Ch D 34, followed Tait v Bindal People [2002] FCA 322, cited Wiest v Director of Public Prosecutions [1988] FCA 568, cited Bethune v Porteous (1892) 18 VLR 493, cited Ciappina v Ciappina (1983) 70 FLR 287, considered Endormer Pty Limited (In Liquidation) v Australian Guarantee Corporation Limited [2001] FCA 510, cited SERGEY DRANICHNIKOV and OLGA DRANICHNIKOV v CENTRELINK and BRIAN McKENNA No Q 177 of 2002 SPENDER J BRISBANE 20 DECEMBER 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 177 OF 2002

BETWEEN: SERGEY DRANICHNIKOV

FIRST APPLICANT

OLGA DRANICHNIKOV

SECOND APPLICANT

AND: CENTRELINK

FIRST RESPONDENT

BRIAN MCKENNA

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SPENDER J

DATE OF ORDER: 20 DECEMBER 2002